Slashdot Mirror
InfoWorld's Crystal Ball Predicts the Future of Microsoft
museumpeace writes "InfoWorld executive editor Galen Gruman has brainstormed five different scenarios for Microsoft in the coming decade and solicits the reader's vote on which is more likely. Does it tank? Does it go open source? Does it out-Google Google? Does Ballmer really fill Gates' shoes?"
How would my company not have been locked in? They've spent millions and have to spend millions more just to get away. That is the lock-in part.
Seriously, that's your definition of lockin? I hate to break this news to you, but if your company had started on Linux, they would have invested millions in Linux (time administering [using more expensive Unix / Linux admins], setup, hardward costs), and they would have to spend millions more to switch to MS. So by your definition, they are trading one platform lockin for another.
Most companies appropriately believe they need the latest version of everything. It's pretty critical in a majority of industries, actually. Or are you saying that we should all be using windows 3.1 still?
It depends. Does the Windows 3.1 computer still fulfill its tasks? If it does, and there's no productivity gain to upgading, then yes, that workstation shouldn't be upgraded. I find your statement odd, because you pull out of your ass what "most" companies do, with nothing to back it up. Your logic is totally flawed, because you believe that since Win3.1 isn't really used much anymore, companies upgraded for no real reason. Since you're throwing out anecdote, my company is still using Office 2000. Why? It does wha we need it to. Only now are they considering upgradnig to a newer Outlook, mainly to help with spam.
It's kinda like patching IE: you're using it on a closed off network it's fine but when you get to reality you need it to be as up to date as possible to deal with the retards who go to bad sites.
Patching an OS is quite different than upgrading to a newer version of one. Also, there are other ways to manager bad users; one is to deny them access to the internet at all, since its likely there are some who don't need the internet to do their job. Your logic is suprisingly bad..
I question your view on linux. Apple is better than linux? How exactly? You mean how it "just works" like how they blackboxed a whole set of apples with a patch recently?
Yup, exactly. It just works, most of the time. Unlike Linux, where you spend more time trying to manage the damn thing than actually using it. As far as your graphics statement goes in your previous post.. last I checked Photoshop still ruled, and it doesn't run natively on Linux.
I'm not saying Linux is perfect, but anyone can put in the effort to do what they want similar to BSD. From a development standpoint it's kinda hard to not want that instead of having to cry to a proprietary company to do what you want based off their own interests.
From a development standpoint I'd rather a robust modern language like C# or Java. Yes, I know Java works on Linux. Unfortunately, most Linux developers STILL uses the beast that is C / C++. I guess because they feel it make them l33t or some nonsense. I also like the direction MS is going with .Net; it's meant to replace the Win32 API. Good riddence, because developing in C# is so much quicker than Win32.
Oh, and every company having their own internal software team to write an OS specific to them... well, lets just say its mostly a huge waste of time. Most companies want it to "just work." Linux doesn't offer that. MS or even Apple are much better at "just working" than Linux.